2003 (1) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pted by the competent authority. Possession of the property was thereafter delivered to the petitioner and a sale deed dated January 9, 1988, was executed by the President of India in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner requested respondent No.2, DDA for mutation of the property in question and vide letter dated August 9, 1988, the petitioner was intimated the amount of the unearned increase amounting to Rs. 2,19,848.57 which had not been paid by respondent No.1, Commissioner of Income-tax. Respondent No.2 thus refused to carry out the mutation without payment of the said amount. The petitioner applied for conversion of the property into freehold on December 23, 1999, and deposited the conversion charges but the property was not con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. On the basis of the abovesaid provision of the lease deed, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the claim of the authority to charge unearned increase in the case of DDA v. Official Liquidator, setting aside the judgment of the High Court, Calcutta, on April 4, 2001. A copy of the above judgment is enclosed for reference. Accordingly, the DDA has recovered the demanded amount of unearned increase in respect of property No. 4/13A, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. Similarly, in the case of property No.1 E/6, Jhandewalan, Delhi, allotted to B. K. Khanna and Co. Pvt. Ltd., the DDA has charged unearned increase. This fact has already been intimated vide this office letter No. S & S II (140)88/ASO(D) dated March 17, 1989, to the Deputy Commissioner o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g in this section would operate to discharge the transferor or any other person (not being the Central Government) from liability in respect of any encumbrances on the property and such liability is to be enforced against the transferor. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Sub-section (1) of the said section itself makes it clear that the property has to vest in the Central Government in terms of the agreement for transfer. It is not for the petitioner who has purchased the property in auction to pay any unearned increase or for the original transferor. The liability, if any, has to be of respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, however, disputes the obligation to pay the said li....